Alacritty vs Kitty

Alacritty does not support tabs or splits natively. It follows the Unix philosophy that the terminal should only be a terminal. Users must rely on external tools like tmux, Zellij, or their OS window manager to handle multiple panes. This keeps Alacritty lightweight but requires more setup for multitasking.

Alacritty focuses strictly on text. While it can display standard ASCII/ANSI art, it does not have a native protocol for high-resolution images. It renders text beautifully using the GPU, but it is not designed for users who need to view terminal-based plots or photos.

Alacritty uses a TOML configuration file (previously YAML). It is straightforward and well-documented. Changes are usually detected live, meaning the terminal updates instantly as you save the file. It is clean and readable but offers fewer 'deep' hooks than Kitty's Python-based system.

Kitty uses a flat text configuration file but allows for incredible depth. Because parts of Kitty are written in Python, users can write 'kittens' to extend functionality. It supports complex keyboard mapping and remote control via a Unix socket, offering unmatched flexibility for custom workflows.

Kitty is also GPU-accelerated and extremely fast. In most real-world scenarios, the performance difference between Kitty and Alacritty is imperceptible. However, Kitty’s additional features can lead to a slightly larger memory footprint compared to the bare-bones Alacritty.

Alacritty supports standard font rendering and multi-font fallbacks. However, it historically resisted native ligature support to maintain its minimalist focus on a grid-based text system. While it has improved, it is not its primary selling point.

Alacritty does not have a plugin system. Its functionality is fixed by the developers. Any 'extensions' must be done via external shell scripts or by wrapping the terminal in other tools. This keeps the core stable but limits internal customization.

Alacritty works perfectly fine over SSH, but it relies on the terminfo of the remote machine being correctly configured. It does not offer specific tools to enhance the remote experience, acting as a standard, transparent pipe for the shell.

Kitty is excellent on macOS and Linux. However, it does not natively support Windows (except via WSL). This is a significant drawback for users who need a unified terminal experience that includes native Windows command prompt or PowerShell support.